The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 0776 (Bang-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 254

Where paper book filed in the appellate proceedings before the Tribunal showed the relevant returns of TDS were available and the dates of filing TDS returns for various quarters were correct and where order of AO under section 201(1) and 201(1A) was passed beyond time limit prescribed under provisions of section 201(3)(ii), therefore miscellaneous petition was filed on total misconception of facts and deserved to be quashed.

Appeal (Tribunal) - Rectification of mistake - Time limitation -

Revenue filed the miscellaneous petition under section 254(2) for rectification of certain allegedly apparent error in the order of Tribunal. It was the plea of assessee that proceedings initiated under section 201(1) and 201(1A) by the show cause notice were barred by time as laid down in section 201(3). Assessee also took a plea that it was not liable to deduct tax at source on provision made for expenses and Police Bandobast charges. The stand was rejected by AO and he treated assessee as an assessee in default and determined tax liability and interest under section 201(1) & 201(1A). Tribunal held that proceedings under section 201(1) & 201(1A) were barred by time on the reasoning that provisions of section 201(3) as Substituted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, with effect from 1-10-2014 are applicable only prospectively. Held: From the paper book filed in the appellate proceedings before the Tribunal, relevant returns of TDS were available and the dates of filing TDS returns for various quarters were correct and proceedings under section 201(1) and 201(1A) were barred by time as Even in MP revenue had not taken a stand that return of TDS were not filed or the dates of filing of TDS return as given by the assessee were not correct. Revenue contended that time for passing the order was available up to 31-3-2015 as per the provisions of section 201(3)(ii) and when such time limit was available the Finance Act, 2012, with retrospective amendment from 1-4-2010 extended the period of limitation to 6 years. Order of AO was passed on 11-9-2015 and therefore, order had to be regarded as one passed within the period of limitation. However, this contention was devoid of any merit. Therefore, miscellaneous petition was filed on total misconception of facts and deserved to be quashed.

Followed:JP Jani, ITO & Anr. v. Induprasad Devshanker Bhatt AIR 1969 SC 778 : 1969 TaxPub(DT) 0151 (SC) Relied: S.S. Gadgil v. Lal & Co. (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC) : AIR 1965 SC 171 : 1964 TaxPub(DT) 0340 (SC) Hazara Singh Gill v. The State of Punjab 1986 SC 1896 (6) Tata Teleservices v. UOI (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj.) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 1126 (Guj-HC)

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour

A.Y. :



IN THE ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT